Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.com
50
that they hold. Mary’s story forces us to reconsider the term “integration” and the assumption that it is
a universal, value where more is always better.
When we are forced to consider situations such as this one, it becomes very clear that, if there is to
be any resolution, then that resolution is one that will be co-constructed by the individuals involved
within the context of the individual cases and relationships. The purpose of the organisational and
systems resources that are deployed around the case is to facilitate this co-construction and to provide
supportive and safe governance mechanisms. The questions we must ask about such systems concern
how they enable the signalling of concern, the assumption, exchange and discharge of responsibility for
care with consent, and the appropriate governance of information in the interests, and under the control,
of the parties concerned.
Putting this in the more concrete terms of Mary’s case: how could Mrs Cannybody signal her
concerns in ways that respect Mary’s choices? How can Mary’s councillor respond and engage Mary in
that response? How can the three domains of information remain distinct and separate until and unless
individuals with the appropriate rights and responsibilities perform explicit acts of relationship
management which connect things together and how, finally, can these acts of identity and relationship
management be made auditable, accountable and governable?
4 THE CONCEPT OF IDENTITY
Before we can begin to consider these difficult questions, we must first establish some
groundwork of concepts and meanings. This is ontology in the deeper, philosophical sense, not in the
rather superficial sense of the data modeller.
As human individuals we all share an innate sense of self. We each uniquely experience what it is
like to have our own thoughts and feelings and also to experience the continuity of individuality
through out our lives. This concept of identity and individuality corresponds to what Peirce calls a
“First” or monadic concept. The “I” that is delineated is purely self referential and needs no reference
to anything else. There are few instances of monadic concepts that we use in everyday life and they
seem strange. Much more familiar is the dyadic concept of identity. In this way of framing the issue, I
am the collection of attributes that I exhibit to the world and through which I can be recognised. So, I
am the individual with a particular date and place of birth, with a gender, parentage, etc. I exhibit a
particular demography and any particular collection of information items from this set of items may be
adequate to uniquely identify me from within some wider group.
In addition to my demography there is also a set of biometric data which is associated with my
physical presence: photographs, thumb prints, retinal scans and genetic maps are examples of this sort
of identifying information. Finally there is my signature which is performative data which is associated
with, but not necessarily unique to, me. (A forger could practice and make perfect.) This concept of
identity – what Peirce calls a “Second” - is two items which, through their relationship or association,
form a concept. It is the association of the data with the individual which constitutes this notion of
identity. When this data is put into an information system, and clearly, I, the individual, remain in the
world outside of that system, we face an interesting set of challenges. Who, for example, owns that
system? What is its purpose and what is my relationship with both of these? The ownership of the
system that contains this data represents a relationship of potential power and control and, as a result, I,
as the subject, have a stake and an interest to protect. It is this concept of identity that is the basis of the
two approaches to identity management mentioned at the beginning of this paper.
Unfortunately, the propensity to confuse the data in the system with the realities that it refers to
outside of the system is a strong one and there is a rather pervasive attitude in technological and
management domains to rely on technical and organisational means and to attribute ultimate value to
the information in the system referring to it, for example, as the “single point of truth”. But even in the
case of a banking system, for example, where the figure in the account does represent the account
holder’s balance as far as the bank is concerned, we are still left with questions as to whether the string
of transactions that have resulted in this figure were executed by the individuals that the system has
taken to be their authors. Anyone who has experienced impersonation and fraud will know that the
concept of truth is relative here and we need to ask the question “whose truth?”
Arguments like this, and there are many of them, lead to the conclusion that the dyadic notion of
identity, whilst it does a job in the world of information systems, is not an adequate one in many
circumstances. Certainly when we remember Mary’s story, we can see that, even though there is only
one individual, Mary, the information system(s) which support the delivery of services to her can not
afford to take the process of interpreting identity attributes and recognising Mary away from the
contexts of the particular relationships within which that recognition is taking place. In Peircian terms,
this is making identity triadic. An identity is the three way linkage between the means (information) by